Mumbai Court October 1956 Judgments
Parashuram Rajaram Tiwari Vs. Hirabai Rajaram Tiwari and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Bom59; (1957)59BOMLR74; ILR1957Bom175
Dixit, J. 1. This appeal raises an interesting question under the Hindu Law which is as to the effect of a preliminary decree made in a suit for partition upon the status of the family being continued joint.2. The few facts, which are relevant to this question, are these : A Hindu family consisted of one Rajaram and his wife Hirabai. He has six sons; (1) Parashuram, (2) Balaram, (3) Ramakrishna, (4) Laxmikant, (5) Shamsundra and (6) Ashotharam who were respectively the plaintiff, defendant No. 3, defendant No. 4, defendant No. 5, defendant No. 6 and defendant No. 7 in suit No. 29 of 1947. In that year, Parshuram filed the aforesaid suit to recover, by partition, possession of his 1/8th share in the property described in the plaint. This suit resulted in a preliminary decree on the 29th November 1949, the terms of which were as follows :'Plaintiff do recover possession of 1/8th share in the properties found in inventory and that in Schedules B and C of plaint by partition by metes and b...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaben A. Thanawala Vs. Jyoti Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1956
Reported in: AIR1958Bom214; (1957)59BOMLR67
Chagla, C.J.1. This is a special case submitted to us under section go of the Civil procedure Code and it raises questions of construction of certain sections of the new Companies Act, 1956. Counsel have drawn our attention to the extremely unsatisfactory drafting of this Act and We must confess that many of its provisions do not suffer from lucidity. We have been told that the new Act has raised many problems for those who have anything to do with the management or running of companies, and the problems brought before us are only a few of those which have arisen in practice. It seems to us unfortunate that a law which is intended to help in the development of companies in our country and also to put down abuses- which were noticed in the working of companies and especially in the institution of the managing agency which is peculiar to our country, should not have been couched in clear and more precise language. That, however, is a matter for Parliament. Our concern is to take the law ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahalinga Bandappa Vs. Venkatesh Waman
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Bom201; (1957)59BOMLR227; ILR1957Bom302
Vyas, J.1. This in defendant's appeal from a judgment of the lower appellate Court, by which judgment the judgment of the trial Court decreeing the plaintiff's suit for recovery of possession and arrears of rent was confirmed, and it raises interesting points under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.2. The plaintiff has filed this suit for recovering possession of his premises and arrears of rent from the defendant to whom the premises were let for business or trade. The suit premises are a portion of a house let to the defendant for running a shop on a monthly rent of Rs. 25/- and they are situated in what at one time was the Shahapur Municipal District in the former Sangli State. In the notice which the plaintiff save to the defendant on the 9-2-1953, the plaintiff said that he required the suit premises for the use of his family. At the hearing he contended that he was in need of these premises as he wanted to start a cloth shop therein for his sons. T...
Tag this Judgment!Vithal Sakharam Kodre Vs. Gopala Gangaram Dawkhar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1956
Reported in: (1957)59BOMLR59
Gokhale, J.1. This is a Special Application under Article 227 of the Constitution by the landlord against the decision of the Revenue Tribunal confirming the order of the District Deputy Collector remanding the case to the Mamlatdar for disposing of the tenant's application for determination of reasonable rent.2. It appears that survey No. 10 of Shrirampur was originally owned by the present opponent, the tenant. The tenant sold it to the landlord on February 28, 1925, but the landlord put his original vendor in possession of the land as his tenant in 1939. Then the landlord, while the tenant was in possession, mortgaged the land to the tenant under a simple mortgage of May 25, 1943, for Rs. 2000. It seems that there was some dispute between the landlord and the tenant, and the latter took two agreements to purchase the land from the separated brother of the landlord. On February 23, 1949, in reply to a landlord's notice the tenant contested the nature of his own sale-deed of 1925 and ...
Tag this Judgment!D.A. Koregaonkar Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1956
Reported in: AIR1958Bom167; (1957)59BOMLR22; ILR1957Bom120; (1957)IILLJ23Bom
Chagla, C.J. 1. This appeal arises out of a petition filed by the petitioner who was a member of the Bombay City Police Force against an order of dismissal dated 8-12-1954. On the 21-7-1953 a notice was served upon him to show cause why he should not be suspended. On the 24-7-1953 he submitted his reply and ho was suspended on the 27-7-1953. Charges were furnished to him on the 2-11-1953 and the charges briefly were, first, that he joined one Rebello in engaging in trade in respect of certain watches which had been smuggled into India by Rebello, that he also contracted a debt in respect of these watches because although a sum of Rs. 2510/- was due to Rebello he had only paid him a sum of Rs. 1,400/-, and that his whole conduct appearing in these transactions was prejudicial and likely to throw discredit on the discipline and reputation of the Police Force. The second charge was that he was slack in his supervision, and the third charge was that he was found in his residence on the 16-...
Tag this Judgment!Balkrishna Sakharam Naik Vs. Siddappa Vithoba Gangade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1956
Reported in: (1957)59BOMLR54
Gokhale, J.1. This is a Special Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the landlord against the decision of the Revenue Tribunal remanding opponentNo. 1's application to the Mamlatdar for the determination of reasonable price of certain lands and disposal of the application under Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The petitioner-landlord is the owner of six pieces of land admeasuring about 103 acres at Karajgi, Taluka Akalkot, District Sholapur. Opponent No. 1 is the protected tenant in respect of these lands. In 1952 the petitioner wanted to sell three out of these six pieces of lands, S. Nos. 93, 94 and 142, admeasuring 17 acres and 13 gunthas, and he accordingly applied to the Mamlatdar under Section 64 of the Tenancy Act for determination of reasonable price of these lands. To these proceedings the opponent was not made a party. It is not in dispute that the opponent is a protected tenant of these lands. On July 24, 1952, the M...
Tag this Judgment!Jotirao Narayanrao Diwan Vs. Ananda Dadu Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1956
Reported in: (1957)59BOMLR50
Gokhale, J. 1. This Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution raises a short point of law, and it arises in this way.2. Survey No. 144 of Mangaon in the district of Kolhapur is owned by the present petitioners. Dadu Tukaram Patil cultivated the land as their protected tenant. He died in 1952, and it appears that he was in arrears in payment of rent for the years 1949-50, 1950-51 and 1951-52. Dadu left as his heirs a minor son and two widows. According to the petitioners, evenafter notice, Dadu's heirs did not pay the arrears of rent. It is common ground that the names of the minor son as well as of the widows of Dadu are entered in the record of rights as heirs of the protected tenant in respect of this land. As these heirs of Dadu did not pay the arrears, the landlords gave them a notice terminating the tenancy, and applied to the Mamlatdar for possession on the ground that the tenants had failed to pay rent for three years. The learned Mamlatdar held that there ...
Tag this Judgment!Hirji Bharmal Vs. Bombay Cotton Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1956
Reported in: AIR1958Bom411; (1957)59BOMLR4; ILR1957Bom163
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises is based on three contracts by which the plaintiffs agreed to sell cotton to the defendants. The first contract is dated '18th December, 1951 and by this contract the plaintiffs sold 500 bales of Bengal Deshi Cotton at Rs. 640/- per candy F. O. R. Bombay. The second and the third contracts are of even date 22nd December, 1951. By the first of these two contracts the plaintiffs sold 2145 bales also of Bengal Deshi Cotton at Rs. 627/- per candy F. O. R. Bombay, and by the second they sold 1000 bales at Rs. 627/- per candy F. O. R. Bombay.2. The main dispute with regard to these two contracts between the plaintiffs and the defendants was that according to the defendants this cotton was to come from Pcpsu region and the cotton was to be accepted by the defendants on buyers' selection, i.e. their selection. As against this the plaintiffs' contention was that this cotton was to be of Dhuri Line and was to be of 'fair average qualit...
Tag this Judgment!Rajaram Raghu Patil Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1956
Reported in: AIR1958Bom469; (1957)59BOMLR43; 1958CriLJ1385; ILR1957Bom173
Dixit, J.1. Three accused persons including the present appellant, who was accused No. 1 in the Court below, were tried before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, for an offence of murder of one Bapu Tukaram Patil, the charge against the three accused persons being that on or about 18-9-1955, in Shaha-pur village they and one Shankar Nalavade, 'since absconding, in furtherance of a common intention of all intentionally caused the death of Bapu Tukaram Patil of Kodoli and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code. At the trial, the learned Judge acquitted Nos. 2 and 3, hut convicted accused No. 1 under section 326 read with section 34 and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. Accused No. 1 now appeals from his conviction and the sentence imposed upon him.2. The order of conviction runs as follows:'In the result, I acquit accused No. 1 of the charge under Section 302 but convict him under Sect...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Narsing Lingo Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1956
Reported in: (1957)59BOMLR141
Vyas, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Belgaum City, acquitting the respondent who was charged with having committed offences under Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Bombay Prevention of Adulteration Act, 1925.2. The facts of the case which led to the prosecution of the respondent under Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Bombay Prevention of Adulteration Act, 1925, were stated by me in the interlocutory judgment which this Court delivered on April 10, 1956. A sample of asafoetida, which was sold by the respondent to the Food Inspector on November 26, 1954, was sent to the Public Analyst for examination. It was found to contain alcohol extract which was 13.95 per cent. and foreign matters, namely, gum and woody fibres. One of its contents was also a dye called 'Metanil Yellow'. The Public Analyst issued a certificate accordingly.3. So far as the discovery of gum and woody fibres in the asafoe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›